The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

jasper76 wrote:
Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Agreed. I'm with the USA on this one, and from a geopolitical point of view, the solution is very simple, and it goes like this:

The USA, UK, France, and Germany need to get round a table and agree the following:

1) Germany needs to ditch the historical baggage and start spending more on defence.

2) France, Germany, and the UK, agree to keep Russia contained in Europe. Between the 3 of them, they should be able to check Russia and maintain the status quo in Europe.

3) The USA shifts its focus to other areas such as Asia and the Middle East.

4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe. Without this backup plan, the whole thing collapses.

IMO, this will please everyone. The USA can focus on Asia, Europe can contain Russia, but are reassured because they know that America is still in the background ready to lend a hand.

Everybody's a winner. Of course, this whole plan hinges on Trump or Clinton willing to sit down and agree to this.

**Goliath**

Just when you thought it was safe to go in the Oklahoma. I give you:

Derp 2: The Derpening

Apparently un-consentingly placing your junk in someone's mouth is no longer rape. Because logic!

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
1) Germany needs to ditch the historical baggage and start spending more on defence.

Are you aware that Germany is ninth on the list of top military spending (with only two EU countries outspending them: the UK and France) and that they just passed their biggest hike in military spending in decades? They still be under the 2% of GDP target for NATO countries, but it's a marked increase and clear reversal of previous trends.

2) France, Germany, and the UK, agree to keep Russia contained in Europe. Between the 3 of them, they should be able to check Russia and maintain the status quo in Europe.

Do they not already agree to that? I was under the assumption that France, Germany, and the UK were allies. I mean, Germany has extremely strong ties to France and I figured they probably think the UK is alright.

3) The USA shifts its focus to other areas such as Asia and the Middle East.

Some of our strongest allies are South Korea and Japan. We have over 28,000 service members in Korea and another 50,000 or so in Japan. As far as the Middle East goes... have you not been watching the news over the last 15 years or so?

4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe. Without this backup plan, the whole thing collapses.

Again, isn't this kind of the whole point of NATO?

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
1) Germany needs to ditch the historical baggage and start spending more on defence.
Are you aware that Germany is ninth on the list of top military spending (with only two EU countries outspending them: the UK and France) and that they just passed their biggest hike in military spending in decades? They still be under the 2% of GDP target for NATO countries, but it's a marked increase and clear reversal of previous trends.

2) France, Germany, and the UK, agree to keep Russia contained in Europe. Between the 3 of them, they should be able to check Russia and maintain the status quo in Europe.
Do they not already agree to that? I was under the assumption that France, Germany, and the UK were allies. I mean, Germany has extremely strong ties to France and I figured they probably think the UK is alright.

3) The USA shifts its focus to other areas such as Asia and the Middle East.

Some of our strongest allies are South Korea and Japan. We have over 28,000 service members in Korea and another 50,000 or so in Japan. As far as the Middle East goes... have you not been watching the news over the last 15 years or so?

4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe. Without this backup plan, the whole thing collapses.
Again, isn't this kind of the whole point of NATO?

To address some of your points:

1) Germany has increased its defence spending, and like you say, it still falls short of the 2% of GDP, but it needs to hit that level.

2) Germany does have close relations with France, this is true, but it also has strong trade links with Russia, and for this reason, it sat on the fence when it came to sanctions against Russia during the Ukraine crisis. Should a future crisis arise involving Russia, Germany needs to take a firmer stance.

3) Obviously, I am aware of NATO

but the alliance's reaction to ease the concerns of the Baltic states these past 2-3 years has been woefully inadequate. It's all very well invoking article 5, but if people don't have the stomach to back this up...well...

4) To address the main point which is US foreign policy under Trump or Clinton, I'll say this:

I'm well aware of what has happened in the Middle East these past 15 years, but America can't afford to abandon the region. The Saudis are a close ally, and of course, it would be political suicide for any American president to abandon Israel. For these 2 reasons alone, the USA will be in the Middle East. But to what end? Containment of Iran and Russia?

As for Asia, there is no denying the links between Japan and South Korea, but other nations need US support: Vietnam of all places, the Philippines, Malaysia, and so on. What happens if North Korea collapses?

Questions questions, questions.

As it stands, America has three key areas of focus: Europe, Middle East, and Asia.

By cutting a deal with the big 3 of Europe, the next American president can shift resources from Europe to other areas, and save money by getting Europe to take up more of the slack on defence spending.

It's a no brainer.

**jmurph**

RE: America and international trade.

Of course the US benefits from international trade, but it also pays costs. Large actors have overwhelmingly benefitted while American workers continue to face high unemployment and stagnant wages. Trump's "America First" rhetoric rings of protectionism and isolationism because it targets disenfranchised workers for votes, not because it is a coherent policy. Just like his anti-immigrant stances.

**Easy E**

Kilkrazy wrote:
yellowfever wrote:
Honest question. What's wrong with a American wanting America first. Shouldn't all countries look after themselves first.
It used to be said that the business of America is Business.

You have to remember that this quote was before the "Shareholder Value" trend that we see in business today. In those days, business was more nationalistic and less about hyper-focusing on delivering value to Shareholders above all else. Therefore, the idea behind it was if it was good for America it was good for Business, and vice-versa. That no longer holds true as what is good for Shareholders is what is good for business.

I am not articulating this very well, but I hope you get the idea.

**A Town Called Malus**

Goliath wrote:
Just when you thought it was safe to go in the Oklahoma. I give you:

Derp 2: The Derpening

Apparently un-consentingly placing your junk in someone's mouth is no longer rape. Because logic!

....what?

Please tell me that that's a joke. Please.

**reds8n**

have you tried going to

carlyfiorinaforvicepresident.com

Fair play.

**jmurph**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Just when you thought it was safe to go in the Oklahoma. I give you:

Derp 2: The Derpening

Apparently un-consentingly placing your junk in someone's mouth is no longer rape. Because logic!

....what?

Please tell me that that's a joke. Please.

So here's the thing, U.S. criminal law is *very* picky. Something has to codified to be a criminal offense. The OK criminal law they were dealing with looks like this:

Universal Citation: 21 OK Stat § 21-888v2 (2014)

A. Any person who forces another person to engage in the detestable and abominable crime against nature, pursuant to Section 886 of this title, upon conviction, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a period of not more than twenty (20) years. Except for persons sentenced to life or life without parole, any person sentenced to imprisonment for two (2) years or more for a violation of this subsection shall be required to serve a term of post-imprisonment supervision pursuant to subparagraph f of paragraph 1 of subsection A of Section 991a of Title 22 of the Oklahoma Statutes under conditions determined by the Department of Corrections. The jury shall be advised that the mandatory post-imprisonment supervision shall be in addition to the actual imprisonment. Any person convicted of a second violation of this section, where the victim of the second offense is a person under sixteen (16) years of age, shall not be eligible for probation, suspended or deferred sentence. Any person convicted of a third or subsequent violation of this section, where the victim of the third or subsequent offense is a person under sixteen (16) years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of life or life without parole, in the discretion of the jury, or in case the jury fails or refuses to fix punishment then the same shall be pronounced by the court. Any person convicted of a violation of this subsection after having been twice convicted of a violation of subsection A of Section 1114 of this title, a violation of Section 1123 of this title or sexual abuse of a child pursuant to Section 843.5 of this title, or of any attempt to commit any of these offenses or any combination of said offenses, shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term of life or life without parole.

B. The crime of forcible sodomy shall include:

1. Sodomy committed by a person over eighteen (18) years of age upon a person under sixteen (16) years of age; or

2. Sodomy committed upon a person incapable through mental illness or any unsoundness of mind of giving legal consent regardless of the age of the person committing the crime; or

3. Sodomy accomplished with any person by means of force, violence, or threats of force or violence accompanied by apparent power of execution regardless of the age of the victim or the person committing the crime; or

4. Sodomy committed by a state, county, municipal or political subdivision employee or a contractor or an employee of a contractor of the state, a county, a municipality or political subdivision of this state upon a person who is under the legal custody, supervision or authority of a state agency, a county, a municipality or a political subdivision of this state; or

5. Sodomy committed upon a person who is at least sixteen (16) years of age but less than twenty (20) years of age and is a student of any public or private secondary school, junior high or high school, or public vocational school, with a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older and is employed by the same school system.

Notice something missing? Yup, apparently they didn't think to include situations whereby the victim was incapacitated or otherwise incapable of giving consent for reasons other than "mental illness or any unsoundness of mind." Whoops. Since the leg forgot that part, there the State can't prosecute the behavior under that statute. Worse, even after it's added, it can't be used retroactively.

Maybe they have some other offense that might cover it, maybe not. But it seems like the people of OK should be pretty upset with a legislature that has time to pass laws regarding open carry without a permit, strip doctor licenses for performing otherwise legal abortions, and ban Sharia law, but can't be bothered to draft a proper rape statute.

**Co'tor Shas**

jmurph wrote:
Notice something missing? Yup, apparently they didn't think to include situations whereby the victim was incapacitated or otherwise incapable of giving consent for reasons other than "mental illness or any unsoundness of mind." Whoops. Since the leg forgot that part, there the State can't prosecute the behavior under that statute. Worse, even after it's added, it can't be used retroactively.

Maybe they have some other offense that might cover it, maybe not. But it seems like the people of OK should be pretty upset with a legislature that has time to pass laws regarding open carry without a permit, strip doctor licenses for performing otherwise legal abortions, and ban Sharia law, but can't be bothered to draft a proper rape statute.

Well, let's hope they do now. Because at this point it's pretty disgusting.

reds8n wrote: have you tried going to

carlyfiorinaforvicepresident.com

Fair play.

That's hilarious.

**Tannhauser42**

John Boehner is my new favorite person today for calling Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh".

**LordofHats**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
John Boehner is my new favorite person today for calling Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh".

But wouldn't that makes Ted Cruz sexy as hell, and super charming?

Yeah. Not seeing it

**jasper76**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
John Boehner is my new favorite person today for calling Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh".

I heard on the radio that he said something to the extent that of all the people,Democrat or Republican, he's ever had to work with, Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever met.

**whembly**

Trump's rise explained?

I saw this link on my twitter feed... it's a transcript on Rush Limbaugh's show (lawd that's a hideous website) and here's the snippet:

RUSH: I’m glad you made it through, Sean. Thanks so much.

CALLER: Thanks. I just wanted to make a point, at least my perspective on the support of Trump. I reluctantly support him but I do straight… I mean, I do support him, and it’s not about conservatism. It’s not, as some people say — and I’ve heard it on your show, too, from a lot of callers calling in. It’s not really about, “Well, you know, people are being fooled that he’s not really conservative.” It’s not. I know he’s not a conservative. The fact is, to put it simply, Trump will fight. Not only will he fight, he’ll fight dirty, and the thing is we gotta get that. We have to have someone that’s gonna fight in the mud, ’cause that’s where our opponents are. That’s where our opponents have been.

RUSH: Fight who?

CALLER: The Democrats. I mean, look at what happened after 9/11. Remember it was like a month or two after that, and then Kennedy came out and he started slamming George Bush. You know, all of his supporters were waiting for him to stand up and defend himself, and he didn’t. For eight years, he just let the Democrats plaster him. And then what happens? Obama gets elected, and he rams Obamacare down our throats. What were Reid and Pelosi doing? They were locking people out of committee meetings, remember that?

What was our response? Did we fight back? No. We didn’t fight back. So then what did we do? We have a landslide victory. We give them the House. Do they do it? Do they repeal Obamacare? No. They do nothing. They say, “Well, we can’t do anything ’cause we don’t have the Senate.” Okay, we give you the Senate. What do they do? “Oh, you know, we’re not gonna do anything ’cause we’re gonna take our only weapon off the table before we do battle with these people.”

We’re sick and tired of fighting with people who won’t fight, and when it comes to down to Cruz, you know, my instincts with Cruz is that, yeah, he’s a nice guy. And don’t get me wrong, if he magically wins this nomination, of course I’ll support him. But the problem is, I suspect he won’t fight. Three days ago there was an article in Breitbart where he’s being interviewed and he said, “You know, if I’m elected, “he said something to that effect of, “I’m not gonna get personal. This is gonna be about issues.”

Okay, great. You just handed them the election, ’cause you know what they’re gonna do? They’re gonna make it personal against you and you’re gonna be like the new George Bush just sitting up there like Jeb. You won’t fight. You’ll just sit there and take it and we’re gonna lose again. And the thing is, Trump, you know what? I disagree with probably 80% of the stuff that he believes in, or he purports to. But the thing is, I think we’re facing an existential crisis. It comes down to immigration, illegal immigration —

RUSH: Okay.

CALLER: — and Obamacare.

RUSH: Stop. You don’t need to say any more. You just said everything in about five words. “I don’t agree with 80% of what I think Trump stands for, but I’m voting for him.” That is why the Republican establishment is about ready to commit harakiri. They can’t figure this out.

I hear that all the time that Trump "fights".

This is me:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
John Boehner is my new favorite person today for calling Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh".

I heard on the radio that he said something to the extent that of all the people,Democrat or Republican, he's ever had to work with, Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever met.

That's an endorsement!

**LordofHats**

whembly wrote:

I heard on the radio that he said something to the extent that of all the people,Democrat or Republican, he's ever had to work with, Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever met.

That's an endorsement!

**WrentheFaceless**

Every time I turn on the news, I believe more and more that we should have just let the South GTFO when they seceded

**Kilkrazy**

This is me, but I can see I wouldn't particularly like to have a pint with Hillary Clinton, unless her husband was there too, which I think would be rather a hoot, but if he wasn't, I could do it for politeness' sake.

When it comes to Trump I would pay a moderate amount not to have to have a pint with him if the circumstance should threaten itself.

But I'm not american so it doesn't matter.

**whembly**

LordofHats wrote:
whembly wrote:

I heard on the radio that he said something to the extent that of all the people,Democrat or Republican, he's ever had to work with, Cruz was the most miserable son of a bitch he'd ever met.

That's an endorsement!

Not really. My dad was working for the Senate for awhile after he retired from the Army, and he's become incredibly disillusioned with a lot of politicians he previously liked after meeting them. We were talking about it and he called out Cruz as the worst person he had to deal with while there, and he made a habit of trying to avoid him (before the BS became so much he went private sector).

Full disclosure though, apparently Rubio is a pretty kick guy when it comes to just sitting down and hanging out XD

Disagree... for the anti-establishment & #NeverTrump crowd, this is the most important endorsement Cruz has had so far.

However, in this late in the Primary... not sure if it'll help/hurt Cruz anyways.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
This is me, but I can see I wouldn't particularly like to have a pint with Hillary Clinton, unless her husband was there too, which I think would be rather a hoot, but if he wasn't, I could do it for politeness' sake.

When it comes to Trump I would pay a moderate amount not to have to have a pint with him if the circumstance should threaten itself.

But I'm not american so it doesn't matter.

Well... he wouldn't drink a pint anyways as he doesn't drink alcohol.

**Tannhauser42**

At this point, maybe it's more a question of which candidate you would be willing to smoke a joint with rather than share a pint with?

Of the current crop, Kasich and Sanders are the only ones I would be able to shake hands with and then not have to disinfect myself afterwards.

**Ouze**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[The Saudis are a close ally, and of course, it would be political suicide for any American president to abandon Israel

Yeah, those have been some really good friendships for us.

**FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs**

Satanists have responded to cruz being compared to lucifer.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/04/28/the-satanic-temple-weighs-in-on-john-boehner-calling-ted-cruz-lucifer-in-the-flesh/

**Frazzled**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just heard on the news that Trump's foreign policy, if elected, will be America first!

What is this? The 1930s!!!

Can we expect to see Congress pass neutrality acts? Or Charles Lindbergh touring the country and accusing Britain of wanting to drag America into another European war?

Sounds like a good idea. Yes we're looking at you Canada...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Or just get out of NATO. Cold War is dead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Compel wrote:
Sounds like it's pretty similar to the "Al Capone" trick, then?

The United States of America Federal Government: you can kill or rape anyone you want, but if you mess with the money they will get you!

Its our way, the Chicago Way!

**Reaver83**

I'm looking forward to a g7 meeting in a few years where you have Trump and Boris Johnson trying to have an argument

**Breotan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe.

Didn't we promise something along this line to the Ukraine? How that's working out for them? I'm also fairly certain Georgia thought we had their backs. I wonder what gave them that impression?

**Kilkrazy**

NATO is a defensive alliance. Neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are members.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ouze wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
[The Saudis are a close ally, and of course, it would be political suicide for any American president to abandon Israel

Yeah, those have been some really good friendships for us.

If you work in certain industries or the security services, the Saudi partnership has been very rich and lucrative for some Americans over the years

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
4) And this is the most IMPORTANT point. The USA guarantees to send in the cavalry if the gak hits the fan in Europe.

Didn't we promise something along this line to the Ukraine? How that's working out for them? I'm also fairly certain Georgia thought we had their backs. I wonder what gave them that impression?

The impression was given by some guy sitting in the White House. Perhaps he should have drawn a red line

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Just heard on the news that Trump's foreign policy, if elected, will be America first!

What is this? The 1930s!!!

Can we expect to see Congress pass neutrality acts? Or Charles Lindbergh touring the country and accusing Britain of wanting to drag America into another European war?

Sounds like a good idea. Yes we're looking at you Canada...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
Trump does have a valid point that NATO countries aren't spending their fair share (he's not the first one to notice, for sure), and this is an issue Clinton had better not give him any ground on. These countries really do need to be carrying their established share of the burden, and this shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Or just get out of NATO. Cold War is dead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Compel wrote:
Sounds like it's pretty similar to the "Al Capone" trick, then?

The United States of America Federal Government: you can kill or rape anyone you want, but if you mess with the money they will get you!

Its our way, the Chicago Way!

Frazz, how many times have I got to tell you? Canada has never lost a war and has repelled numerous American invasions over the years. Don't mess with your maple syrup brethren to the north.

**Breotan**

Kilkrazy wrote:
NATO is a defensive alliance. Neither the Ukraine nor Georgia are members.

This has nothing to do with anything. My statement is a commentary on the current value of US guarantees and/or promises of such.

**kronk**

Goliath wrote:
Just when you thought it was safe to go in the Oklahoma. I give you:

Derp 2: The Derpening

Apparently un-consentingly placing your junk in someone's mouth is no longer rape. Because logic!

Dumbasses.

**A Town Called Malus**

kronk wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Just when you thought it was safe to go in the Oklahoma. I give you:

Derp 2: The Derpening

Apparently un-consentingly placing your junk in someone's mouth is no longer rape. Because logic!

Dumbasses.

Well, at least they identified a problem in the law and will (hopefully) try to fix it.

A while ago here in the UK we had a Saudi prince get off a rape charge with the defence argument of "He tripped and fell onto the sleeping woman and his penis just so happened to penetrate her."

**jmurph**

Well it looks like more violence at Trump rallies. But wait, what is this?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/donald-trump-california-protest/index.html

Trump supporter bloodied.

And from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gays-for-trump-crowd-gathers-at-costa-mesa-rally-20160428-story.html:
"I'm protesting because I want equal rights for everybody, and I want peaceful protest," said 19-year-old Daniel Lujan, one of hundreds in a crowd that appeared to be mostly Latinos in their late teens and 20s.
"I knew this was going to happen," Lujan added. "It was going to be a riot. He deserves what he gets."
About five police cars were damaged in total, police said, adding that some will require thousands of dollars' worth of repairs.

"Dump the Trump," one sign read. Another protester scrawled anti-Trump messages on Costa Mesa police cars.
Video footage showed some anti-Trump demonstrators hurling debris at a passing pickup truck. One group of protesters carried benches and blocked the entrance to the 55 Freeway along Newport Boulevard, with some tossing rocks at motorists near the on-ramp.

Charming. No way this has any unintended consequences....